Title
Mecano vs. Commission on Audit
Case
G.R. No. 103982
Decision Date
Dec 11, 1992
NBI director seeks reimbursement for medical expenses; SC rules Administrative Code of 1987 did not repeal Section 699 RAC, granting his claim.
mecano
commission on audit
campos jr

Case Summary (G.R. No. 103982)

Factual Background

Petitioner incurred medical and hospital expenses totaling P40,831.00 for treatment of cholecystitis during the period March 26, 1990 to April 7, 1990 and sought reimbursement under Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code. He submitted his claim to his superior, Alfredo S. Lim, Director of the NBI, by memorandum dated May 11, 1990.

Administrative and Departmental Proceedings

Director Lim indorsed the claim to the Secretary of Justice on June 22, 1990 with a favorable comment from Gerarda Galang, Chief, LED, NBI. The Department of Justice Committee on Physical Examination found the illness service-connected and recommended payment. Undersecretary Silvestre H. Bello III returned the claim on November 21, 1990, citing the COA Chairman’s view that the RAC had been repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987. Petitioner supplied Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of Secretary Drilon dated April 26, 1991, which stated that the Administrative Code did not repeal Section 699 in its entirety, and the claim was again indorsed and ultimately forwarded to COA on July 2, 1991.

COA Decision and Rationale

COA Chairman Eufemio C. Domingo, in the 7th Indorsement dated January 16, 1992, denied the claim on the ground that Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code had been repealed by the Administrative Code of 1987, asserting repeal because the provision was not restated in the 1987 Code. COA suggested that petitioner file with the Employees' Compensation Commission because petitioner’s illness occurred after the effectivity of the 1987 Code.

Issue Presented

The sole issue presented to the Court was whether the enactment of the Administrative Code of 1987 operated to repeal or abrogate Section 699 of the Revised Administrative Code, thereby precluding petitioner’s claim for reimbursement under that section.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner maintained entitlement to benefits under Section 699, relied on Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of Secretary Drilon, and asserted that filing before the Employees' Compensation Commission would not bar recovery under Section 699. Commission on Audit asserted that Executive Order No. 292 revoked or supplanted the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 in its entirety, relied on the whereas clauses and the general repealing provision of the 1987 Code, questioned the weight of the Secretary of Justice’s opinion, and argued that employment-related contingencies are adequately covered by the Employees' Compensation Program under P.D. 626, such that concurrent recovery under both regimes would be unjust to the Government.

Legal Principles on Repeal

The Court reiterated that repeal of a prior law by a later statute is a question of legislative intent. Repeal may be express, by specific citation in the repealing clause, or implied. Implied repeal requires a clear and manifest intention to abrogate the earlier law and arises in two principal situations: where the later statute and the earlier statute are in irreconcilable conflict, or where the later statute covers the entire subject matter of the earlier statute as a complete and intended substitute.

Analysis of the 1987 Code’s Repealing Clause

The Court examined Section 27, Book VII (Final Provisions) of the Administrative Code of 1987, which provides: "Sec. 27. Repealing Clause . -- All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, or portions thereof, inconsistent with this Code are hereby repealed or modified accordingly." The Court found this to be a general repealing clause, not an express repeal, because it did not identify the prior acts to be repealed. Thus repeal under it would occur only upon the finding of substantial inconsistency.

Comparison of the Two Codes and Application of Implied Repeal Doctrine

The Court compared the two Codes and concluded that the Administrative Code of 1987 did not purport to cover the entire subject matter of the Revised Administrative Code. Several matters treated in the 1917 Code, including notaries public, the leave law, public bonding, military reservations, and claims under Section 699, were not restated in the 1987 Code. COA failed to show any irreconcilable conflict between the two Codes on the subject of petitioner’s claim. The Court emphasized the presumption against implied repeal and held that mere nonrestatement of a provision in a later code does not suffice to establish repeal absent clear legislative intent.

Weight of Administrative Opinion and Reviewability

The Court addressed COA’s contention regarding deference to administrative agencies and acknowledged the rule in Sison v. Pangramuyen that courts defer to administrative agencies absent palpable error or grave abuse of discretion. The Court nonetheless held that administrative determinations are reviewable when vitiated by imposition, mistake, or fraud. The Court treated Opinion No. 73, S. 1991 of Secretary Drilon as material in statutory c

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms